❓ A parliamentary question regarding Minister Shave's awareness of his former father-in-law's financial risk with Blackburne and Dixon, referencing the Gunning inquiry. The response is evasive and deflects responsibility.
AnsweredQoN 28Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I have a supplementary question. I handed the minister a copy of the question that I asked. It is in three parts. Will the minister please answer the specifics of it? Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
I just answered the question. The member should use what limited intelligence he has. He asked when I was first aware that my former father-in-law had money at risk through Blackburne and Dixon. I gave evidence to the Gunning inquiry on that issue. One must understand that Fidge and Brailey - Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE replied: I just answered the question. The member should use what limited intelligence he has. He asked when I was first aware that my former father-in-law had money at risk through Blackburne and Dixon. I gave evidence to the Gunning inquiry on that issue. One must understand that Fidge and Brailey - Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
I just answered the question. The member should use what limited intelligence he has. He asked when I was first aware that my former father-in-law had money at risk through Blackburne and Dixon. I gave evidence to the Gunning inquiry on that issue. One must understand that Fidge and Brailey - Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE replied: I just answered the question. The member should use what limited intelligence he has. He asked when I was first aware that my former father-in-law had money at risk through Blackburne and Dixon. I gave evidence to the Gunning inquiry on that issue. One must understand that Fidge and Brailey - Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
I just answered the question. The member should use what limited intelligence he has. He asked when I was first aware that my former father-in-law had money at risk through Blackburne and Dixon. I gave evidence to the Gunning inquiry on that issue. One must understand that Fidge and Brailey - Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr McGinty interjected. Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. The member asked the question. Fidge and Brailey had obviously gone into the inquiry with a letter, and obviously counsel had the letter. I assume that that date of 25 June came from Fidge's letter. On 25 June, I was out doorknocking. My records show that I met 50 constituents on that day because I was out in the street doorknocking. Walker was at a Medical Board of WA meeting on 25 June; Mitchell was at a university examination. That aside, it may have been that at the meeting in April, Fidge raised the issue of one of my relatives or former relatives - whatever word one likes to use - having a problem. I understand those questions were put to me in the Gunning inquiry. Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr Ripper: You understand? Were they or weren't they? Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the transcripts and he will find out. The member for Fremantle and his cohorts have tried to discredit that inquiry since it started. They have now started to try to accuse the counsel assisting the inquiry of not doing anything. Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr Kobelke: Answer the question! Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: I have answered the question. The member can go and check the transcripts of the Gunning inquiry and he will get the precise answer that I gave. In relation to question (2), I have already told the member that no meeting took place on 25 June. Question (3) asked, "Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting…?" No such meeting took place, but if a fax did arrive at the office it may be there; I do not know. I have no direct recollection. Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr McGinty: Were you given a copy of that fax by the Gunning inquiry before you gave your evidence on that day? Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: I have no knowledge of a fax being given to me. I do not know whether my solicitor was given a fax by the Gunning inquiry. I understand under this system that if one is accused of something - if Brailey or Fidge or Shave or Court are accused of something in the Gunning inquiry - it is normal to make them aware of the fact that they are being accused of doing something. I do not know the process. I am not the lawyer; the member opposite is the lawyer. If he wants to know whether the Gunning inquiry did provide the fax, he should ask the Gunning inquiry.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.